The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz ^talk 00:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Corruption in Cuba (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

This is an obvious WP:POVFORK of Politics of Cuba. It is also something of a WP:COATRACK, created by a user who has repeatedly attempted to insert WP:BLP-violating content into Fidel Castro. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:41, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Politics in Cuba is not suitable article for corruption related studies, because corruption is not limited to politics. Corruption happens at all levels of the government like the book Corruption in Cuba by Sergio Diaz-Briquets and Jorge F. Pérez-López says. See also Corruption in Paraguay, Corruption in China, Corruption in Kenya, Corruption in Angola, Corruption in Ghana, Corruption in Armenia... Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Preceding comment is from the article's creator and principal editor. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:24, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument, by the way. These other corruption articles are not even very good (for the life of me, I cannot figure out why an article called "Corruption in Chile" focuses on the year 2005 and makes no mention whatsoever of Augusto Pinochet), and perhaps they should be deleted, as well. But even if they were outstanding, they would provide no justification for the article in question here, for which WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, and WP:COAT would remain issues. Cosmic Latte (talk)

Note: This AfD has been off to a slow start, so I've done some friendly noticing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cuba, Talk:Fidel Castro, Talk:Cuba, and Talk:Politics of Cuba. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:POVFORK, WP:COATRACK, WP:BLP. Also feel it unfairly singles out Cuba. "Corruption in country X" articles are questionable in general. --Athenean (talk) 05:54, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Well-put. "Criticism of X" articles are controversial enough, but "Corruption in"? No, thanks. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Cosmic Latte, you claimed that the article is a WP:POVFORK or WP:COATRACK, but there is almost nothing about corruption in Politics in Cuba. Were you thinking of merging? Luis Napoles (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No, not merging, but perhaps distilling some of the ideas into a summary-style form that can be presented in Politics of Cuba without giving undue weight to little-known authors or to unsubstantiated speculation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 10:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Athenean. There is no way in hell this could be considered to ever be neutral. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:40, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Cosmic Latte, who do you think we should cite if not the authors of "Corruption in Cuba"? (your "little-known authors") Luis Napoles (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There is nothing wrong with citing the authors who are already cited, so long as they are not given WP:UNDUE article space, which would amount to any space in a coatrack povfork BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Cosmic Latte, this is not for merging discussions. You can be bold and merge the content into Politics in Cuba if you want. Luis Napoles (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Uh, I know what AfD is for. You are the one who brought up merging, and I responded that I do not support a merge, so quite honestly I have no idea what you are talking about. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The editor Cosmic Latte originally claimed that Politics in Cuba has same content as Corruption in Cuba ("WP:POVFORK, PV:COATRACK"). Anyone can look at the article he claimed to be forked and find out that he filed this AfD based on a false claim. It appears that Cosmic Latte wants to delete the content based on argument that the research about corruption in Cuba is by "little-known authors" and "speculation". We are still waiting for his opinion who would be a well-known author, if not corruption researchers such as Díaz-Briquets, Pérez-López, and others. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is Wikipedia:Verifiability, not whether we think it's "speculation". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis Napoles (talk • contribs) 16:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I never said that anything has the same content as anything else; what I said is that this article violates WP:POVFORK (hence WP:NPOV as well), WP:COATRACK, and WP:BLP--the last of which denotes a higher threshold for inclusion than mere verifiability. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:Content forking "A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject."

• Does Politics of Cuba treat the same subject as Corruption in Cuba?

• If yes, we should merge the article into Politics in Cuba.
• If not, we might wonder why Cosmic Latte claimed so. Luis Napoles (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This fork does treat the same subject, namely Cuban politics. Your earlier observation that "there is almost nothing about corruption in Politics in Cuba", however, is irrelevant. If you feel that Politics of Cuba needs more on allegations of corruption (the operative word here being "allegations", which is missing from the title of your fork), then feel free to add it. But don't do it in "a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines...to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts". And bear in mind that negative information must be added with great care to a BLP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• So it does treat the same subject. I merged the article into Politics of Cuba.

• Corruption in Cuba should be redirected to Politics in Cuba.Luis Napoles (talk) 18:39, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I see no consensus anywhere to merge anything. "Merge" is a possible outcome of an AfD, but that has not even been suggested by any of this AfD's participants (apart from you) thus far. Merging any article in the middle of its AfD is premature and, well, unusual. But merging an article in the middle of an AfD that has not given even the slightest indication that it should be merged? Hmm... Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least just a moment ago you advocated adding corruption research to Politics in Cuba ("feel free to add it"), while you supposedly seek to delete Corruption in Cuba (i.e. not redirect).Luis Napoles (talk) 19:42, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That was not meant as a retraction of my previous opposition to any merge, but rather as a reiteration of that opposition, which allowed for the possibility that a summary-style distillation of the research can be added to Politics of Cuba without causing glaring BLP or NPOV issues. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. While the current article may be a mess, the topic of "Corruption in Cuba" is probably a notable one. For example, [1]. In fact an article on "Corruption in X", where X is any number of countries would probably be warranted. These would not be attack pages, they would simply describe the corruption in that area. See [2], [3], [4]. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  01:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While current article is something of an attack page and omits any sort of context (corruption in Cuba didn't start with the Castro family, and won't end with them either) the threshold for inclusion is notabily rather than neutrality. If it is not neutral it needs to be tagged (and should be), but not deleted. Corruption in Cuba is notable, but it should not nessecarily be singled out, I'd imagine you could make a fairly baulky article on Corruption in the United States or Corruption in Spain. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment i'm confused is this a book article? (Briquits and Lopez), or if several sources, needs a major rewrite, esp. nomenklatura section, for more integration of sources pohick (talk) 11:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The opening causes problems, since is the article about the book or the subject? The subject is perfectly valid for an encyclopedia, and I see references backing up some of the claims. Dream Focus 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Politics of Cuba because it is a WP:POVFORK.--Caspian blue 05:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and don't merge, it's an article about a book, not about the topic of the book. Rename it to Corruption in Cuba (book) if possible. If it's a non-notable book, nominate it for deletion on those grounds. Nerfari (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up the article to correct the serious bias and essay issues. The confusion about whether this article covers the book by that name or the larger topic can be resolved by writing a proper lead. The topic is notable, whether or not the book by that title is: Other sources are not hard to come by. If the existence of this article "unfairly singles out Cuba," as another editor suggests, than the solution is to better cover the issue of corruption in other countries, so as to counter systemic bias; not to censor Wikipedia in the name of "fairness." --Shunpiker (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.